Author Topic: Fielder  (Read 288295 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1350 on: January 05, 2012, 04:47:10 pm »
Having just received the second direct message in two days questioning whether I truly believe what I am posting about the imminent Fielder signing, the answer is absolutely Yes, I believe that the announcement will be made in the next couple days.  Since I have no inside info I am by no means certain of this fact, but I'm down the rabbit hole.  Of course I recognize that not everyone shares my optimism and so I'm playing it up with a little flourish in my posts and of course I will slam the old man if this signing doesn't happen, but once again, yes I'm checking WNFF and Twitter obsessively in anticipation of the big news on the big man.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1351 on: January 05, 2012, 05:13:23 pm »
Moonie rag website blocked by my firewall. True story.


Anyway rizzo always lies till the deal is done. He said our rotation was set.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31839
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1352 on: January 05, 2012, 05:16:11 pm »
Having just received the second direct message in two days questioning whether I truly believe what I am posting about the imminent Fielder signing, the answer is absolutely Yes, I believe that the announcement will be made in the next couple days.  Since I have no inside info I am by no means certain of this fact, but I'm down the rabbit hole.  Of course I recognize that not everyone shares my optimism and so I'm playing it up with a little flourish in my posts and of course I will slam the old man if this signing doesn't happen, but once again, yes I'm checking WNFF and Twitter obsessively in anticipation of the big news on the big man.

You could have just responded to my PM :lol:

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45849
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1353 on: January 05, 2012, 05:18:16 pm »
Quote
...and wealth redistribution.
not to mention man on dog. 


Oops, I mentioned it.

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5911
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1354 on: January 05, 2012, 05:18:22 pm »
So, is he a Nat yet?

At least the Nats/Fielder roller coaster is fun to ride!

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35152
  • World Champions!!!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1355 on: January 05, 2012, 05:23:05 pm »
Hopefully it doesn't end in a flaming wreck.

Offline Vespy

  • Posts: 116
  • NL Champions
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1356 on: January 05, 2012, 05:30:27 pm »
It is destined to end in a flaming wreck knowing the Lerners cheapness and Rizzo's obsession with defense.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 20386
  • BOOM!
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1357 on: January 05, 2012, 05:32:09 pm »
not to mention man on dog. 


Oops, I mentioned it.

...and Super-Secret-Muslim-Communists born in Kenya.

Yeah.  I said it.


Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45849
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1358 on: January 05, 2012, 05:37:13 pm »
I don't think the Fangraphs piece was saying we would not have a better team if we signed Fielder rather than going the CF route in 2013.  WAR-wise, the table points that out.  I think the down side in his mind was that we were going for a short sugar burst for a year or two, but that it would lead to trouble in the out years when the whole team is arby eligible or free agents.  His point about Morse to first and sign a CF was that that was a more sustainable long term competiveness strategy with only a win or two difference from rolling the dice this year.

He also thinks a Prince signing only bumps us from the mid 80s in wins to the high 80s given how high risk the rest of our roster is. 

Quote
All this is to say, the Nationals are a good team. Even without Fielder, they look like they have the potential to be a mid-80s win team. The problem is that they’re also a very high variance team, meaning they have a large degree of uncertainty in their projections. Will Strasburg stay healthy all season long? How well will he pitch? How much will Werth and Zimmerman bounce back? How will their young players continue to develop? Their season could go any number of ways depending on the outcome of some of these questions.

Using Sky Kalkman’s WAR Calculator, I ran through some basic projections for the Nationals 2012 squad. I used the Bill James projections (which we all know are optimistic like woh), estimated playing time based on the Fan Projections, and tried to compensate when the results seemed waaay optimistic (e.g. Strasburg’s 2.88 ERA in 165 innings). Using this scenario — which assumes the Nationals sign Fielder and everyone on the team performs well — the Nationals project as around a 91-92 win team.

This is a very rosy projection, though, so I expect a more rigorous projection would put the Nationals somewhere in the 86-87 win level with Fielder. That’s good enough to be in playoff contention, but even that much of an improvement may not be enough to raise them higher than fourth in the NL East. The Phillies and Braves are both still dominant teams, and the Marlins look like they’ll have a similar talent level as the Nats (with Fielder) after all their offseason acquisitions. Those two clubs may end up dueling each other out for that final Wild Card slot.
. . .
It may not be the sexiest move, but the best move for the Nationals could be to pass on Fielder and to reallocate those funds into signing a center fielder after the 2012 season. They have a glaring organizational hole in center, and they could arguably make their team just as good while taking on less risk and spending less money:
The table shows the team is only about .5 WAR better with Fielder.

His main point is the decision is not a no brainer. If cash is unlimited (like Kilgore's NJ piece argues), then you can keep both RZ and Prince and the recent draftees for a number of years.  Otherwise, you devalue both LaRoche and Morse as trade bait when you sign Fielder, and you don't make your team that much better than you'd be with Morse at first and a star CF in 2013.

Quote
Signing Prince Fielder would allow the Nationals to go all-in and compete in 2012, but he would come at a steep price — not only monetarily, but also in negative externalities. His signing would considerably decrease Michael Morse’s value (both to the Nationals and via a trade), and it could make it difficult for the Nationals to improve their center field situation.

That’s not to say the Nationals shouldn’t sign Fielder — merely that these are the sort of variables that they need to consider in making their decision. I don’t think I’d do it if I were them, but only their front office knows how much budget space they anticipate having in the future. Either way, the Nationals should be an exciting, surprising team in 2012. For the first time in a while, their franchise is looking headed in a very positive direction.



Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1359 on: January 05, 2012, 05:37:15 pm »
It is destined to end in a flaming wreck knowing the Lerners cheapness and Rizzo's obsession with defense.
Who are you? Mrs sportsfan?


Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1360 on: January 05, 2012, 05:38:38 pm »
I don't think the Fangraphs piece was saying we would not have a better team if we signed Fielder rather than going the CF route in 2013.  WAR-wise, the table points that out.  I think the down side in his mind was that we were going for a short sugar burst for a year or two, but that it would lead to trouble in the out years when the whole team is arby eligible or free agents.  His point about Morse to first and sign a CF was that that was a more sustainable long term competiveness strategy with only a win or two difference from rolling the dice this year.  He also thinks a Prince signing only bumps us from the mid 80s in wins to the mid 90s given how high risk the rest of our roster is. 
The table shows the team is only about .5 WAR better with Fielder.

His main point is the decision is not a no brainer. If cash is unlimited (like Kilgore's NJ piece argues), then you can keep both RZ and Prince and the recent draftees for a number of years.  Otherwise, you devalue both LaRoche and Morse as trade bait when you sign Fielder, and you don't make your team that much better than you'd be with Morse at first and a star CF in 2013.

Prediction to this accuracy with zero data is pretty much bunk imo.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45849
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1361 on: January 05, 2012, 05:43:36 pm »
Zero data, if you don't value the projections systems he cites, the data hte projections are built on, and his view of the risk profile of the team. I don't think whta he calls risk is much differnet from a view that a lot of people here share when they say people need to account not for what is possible if everything goes right, but also what is more likley that things are a mix.

Offline Mr Clean

  • Posts: 4109
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1362 on: January 05, 2012, 05:47:46 pm »
How much clout does Davey Johnson have? I am (pretty)  sure he would want Fielder, so when this is finally over we will all find out.

Offline InsaneBoost

  • Posts: 1479
  • Censored
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1363 on: January 05, 2012, 05:52:00 pm »
You would think he wants him, he loves the hitters if I recall. THIS BETTER HAPPEN NOAZZZZZZZ!

Offline imref

  • Posts: 47640
  • NG Nattitude?
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1364 on: January 05, 2012, 05:53:49 pm »
i again asked the Magic 8 Ball if we'll get Fielder. The answer: "Without a doubt"

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1365 on: January 05, 2012, 05:54:31 pm »
How much clout does Davey Johnson have? I am (pretty)  sure he would want Fielder,
Who wouldn't?  It's just too simplistic to say "I want him", "he makes us a better club", etc.  It's a complex equation - Does what you get equal or exceed what you give up - different for each team.  Acquiring Fielder devalues Morse, for example.  So his loss of value becomes part of the equation. It could mean that acquiring Fielder means we trade Morse. Davey is a big Morse fan.  Not to say that that means he wouldn't want Fielder, just that he would factor it into the equation. And Davey has always been a shrewd baseball guy, so he isn't going to overlook that detail.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1366 on: January 05, 2012, 05:57:29 pm »
i again asked the Magic 8 Ball if we'll get Fielder. The answer: "Without a doubt"

Same 8 ball as in the William Shattner Twilight Zone episode? 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734597/

Offline rbw5t

  • Posts: 804
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1367 on: January 05, 2012, 05:57:35 pm »
Maybe I'm just feeling glass-half-full today, but I'm really ok, excited even, either way.  If we sign Prince, that's obviously huge news and I'd be fully onboard and as excited as anyone.  But if we don't sign him, there's a lot to look forward to too.  And I think that's more in keeping with what the long-term plan has been.  As lots of folks have pointed out, Boswell and others, getting Prince now creates a logjam at 1B and the corner outfield spots, while leaving the hole in center long term.  If we don't sign him, we can go hard after Bourn next year (another Boras client of course), have LaRoche or Morse at first, and sign Zimmerman long-term.  Assuming Espy moves to SS and Lombo or someone else can fill 2B, that looks awfully good to me.  (If I had my druthers, I would have signed Reyes at SS, which would have set the infield and taken care of leadoff.)  Before the offseason, the front office said the priorities were a veteran leader-type starting pitcher, and a CF.  It seems like we're resigned to waiting on CF until next year, but that does seem like the best course at this point. As for the SP, I love the Gio trade, and it gives us the great young core (and corps), but we still don't have that legit veteran presence.  I would love to see a short (1 or 2 year) Oswalt deal if we don't get Prince.  We'd have plenty of money for it, and then he'd be off the books before new deals for Zimn and Zimnn come due.  So, bottom line, I think even without Prince, we can be competitive and fun to watch next year, and really poised to be great starting in '13, which is probably the best course.

All that said, I'll still be jumping for joy if we sign Prince, because good now is always more fun than good later.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1368 on: January 05, 2012, 06:04:40 pm »
If we don't sign him, we can go hard after Bourn next year (another Boras client of course),

If Fielder ends up with a less-than-desirable deal and that's seen as the Nats fault for not giving him the deal Boras wants, we're going to have one pissed-off Boras. I hate to think of having to deal with him again next year.


Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1369 on: January 05, 2012, 06:05:22 pm »
You could have just responded to my PM :lol:

Figured since you were asking along with another poster, others were thinking the same thing.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1370 on: January 05, 2012, 06:12:53 pm »
I don't think the Fangraphs piece was saying we would not have a better team if we signed Fielder rather than going the CF route in 2013.  WAR-wise, the table points that out.  I think the down side in his mind was that we were going for a short sugar burst for a year or two, but that it would lead to trouble in the out years when the whole team is arby eligible or free agents.  His point about Morse to first and sign a CF was that that was a more sustainable long term competiveness strategy with only a win or two difference from rolling the dice this year.

He also thinks a Prince signing only bumps us from the mid 80s in wins to the high 80s given how high risk the rest of our roster is. 
The table shows the team is only about .5 WAR better with Fielder.

His main point is the decision is not a no brainer. If cash is unlimited (like Kilgore's NJ piece argues), then you can keep both RZ and Prince and the recent draftees for a number of years.  Otherwise, you devalue both LaRoche and Morse as trade bait when you sign Fielder, and you don't make your team that much better than you'd be with Morse at first and a star CF in 2013.


The interesting thing about that analysis is that he had to make multiple manual corrections to his calculated stats because they appeared to be too optimistic and he still ended up with 86-87 wins.  What's the point of all this advanced analysis if he is going to disregard the results and pick numbers that just feel right?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1371 on: January 05, 2012, 06:45:27 pm »
Bruce Levine (whoever he may be) from ESPNChicago.com just said Fielder will end up in Washington.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1372 on: January 05, 2012, 06:49:12 pm »
Bruce Levine (whoever he may be) from ESPNChicago.com just said Fielder will end up in Washington.



That much we know, the question is for how long and how much.

Offline Vespy

  • Posts: 116
  • NL Champions
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1373 on: January 05, 2012, 06:58:48 pm »
Well we will just have to wait and see what happens.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 18070
Re: Fielder.
« Reply #1374 on: January 05, 2012, 07:34:24 pm »
The thing is, "signing a star CF free agent in 2013" is so far out and unpredictable that I don't buy into it. No chance Victorino, Upton and Bourn are all free agents. At least one will re-sign with their team and it's too risky to say we'll wait for that.